Again, what is really weird about this is that their suggests represent a basic misunderstanding of how guns work. Most people can't use them safely or well with just a little training; some won't ever be trainable, without dedicating massive amounts of time and effort to it. Many are physically incapable, many more emotionally unsuitable.

Everyone who's actually fired a gun knows it's a big deal, that it isn't a simple thing, and yet these idiots are pretending that it's a magic "Evil person go bye-bye" stick.

If they love guns so much how come they don't know fuck-all about them?

For the gun fanatics, regulations that might help reduce firearms fatalities in the country are viewed as somehow going to eliminate the 2d Amendment even as the first three words of the amendment call for "a well regulated". It was always envisioned for there to be regulations on firearms. Clearly existing regulations aren't working, but that isn't the same as calling for a wholesale elimination of the right to bear arms.

Regulation ≠ repeal 2d Amendment.

And of course, the possibility of changing regulations is seen as an opportunity to buy more guns, more firepower, in the name that the government is going to take them away from law abiding citizens.

You heard it right here: Obama intends to repeal the 2nd Amendment, confiscate guns, usurp power and round up law-abiding citizens into FEMA re-education camps where they will labor under Chinese overlords to produce free Obamaphones for welfare recipients.

They keep on talking about political correctness. I don't think they know what it is. They just see it as the reason that they can't act like total jackasses. That's not what PC is.

...and in the same breath they want to implement their own "correctness" that controls speech and expression. I mean, what's the remedy to all this "secular, relativist culture"--forcing people to only watch what the culture warriors feel is whole. You know, a giant censorship and indoctrination program by the government.

But yeah it seems the nuts have come out. Let's blame Newtown on everything but guns. God, I hate to sound like a George Carlin but we're painfully stupid sometimes. You'll blame secularism and political correctness but you'll freak your shit if someone suggests that guns are a problem. What the fucking fuck.

...and in the same breath they want to implement their own "correctness" that controls speech and expression. I mean, what's the remedy to all this "secular, relativist culture"--forcing people to only watch what the culture warriors feel is whole. You know, a giant censorship and indoctrination program by the government.

Oh yeah, they bitch about political correctness but they flip out whenever their religious or political beliefs are mocked.

Can't quite be sure how religious Newtown was, but the funerals are mostly occurring at one of the churches there. Newtown is also home to the NSSF. Not exactly a bunch of heathens and atheists. They were home to one of the largest supporters of firearms rights in the country. People who worked for the NSSF lived and participated in Newtown life, including schools there.

The gunman's mother had a cache of guns and ammo. Didn't help her. The gunman murdered her first, and then moved on to the school. Why? We still don't know, and we may never know.

Because really, what this nation needs right now is even more paranoid nuts with firearms and little respect for them.

Of course, what happens when they set a requirement to arm every American legally able to own a gun and find out that millions below the poverty line can't afford a gun. Right: Bitch that the government is giving poor people guns.

Because really, what this nation needs right now is even more paranoid nuts with firearms and little respect for them.

Of course, what happens when they set a requirement to arm every American legally able to own a gun and find out that millions below the poverty line can't afford a gun. Right: Bitch that the government is giving poor people guns.

Can you imagine if they went totally off the cliff and started shooting everyone who wasn't white?

Can you imagine if they went totally off the cliff and started shooting everyone who wasn't white?

Personally, I don't figure it'd take them long after any national plan to arm everybody before they started arguing against giving guns to the "wrong" people. Consider how much of a fucking fit they threw when they found out that poor people have access to cellphones. You imagine what happens when they stop and realize that the "47%" are now armed?

Personally, I don't figure it'd take them long after any national plan to arm everybody before they started arguing against giving guns to the "wrong" people. Consider how much of a fucking fit they threw when they found out that poor people have access to cellphones. You imagine what happens when they stop and realize that the "47%" are now armed?

Well the nuts are pretty consistent about civil liberties being solely for their tribe. I don't see why they'd make an exception for the 2nd Amendment.

When I first became aware of the NRA, back in the 50s, it was an organization of rather kindly older people who ran safety and marksmanship classes, supervised shooting competitions, and handed out various awards. They shied away from the idea that you might actually shoot a criminal with one of your guns, let alone resist the national government or any other lawful authority.

Today, of course, the NRA is one of the bulwarks of right-wing conspiracy culture, its every move rooted in the assumption that the right's political opponents will set up a tyrannical state if given the slightest opportunity. How this change came about has been documented in a number of places, and will be a subject for historians a thousand years from now, but it has been a source of wonder and dread to see it happen in real time.

When I first became aware of the NRA, back in the 50s, it was an organization of rather kindly older people who ran safety and marksmanship classes, supervised shooting competitions, and handed out various awards. They shied away from the idea that you might actually shoot a criminal with one of your guns, let alone resist the national government or any other lawful authority.

Today, of course, the NRA is one of the bulwarks of right-wing conspiracy culture, its every move rooted in the assumption that the right's political opponents will set up a tyrannical state if given the slightest opportunity. How this change came about has been documented in a number of places, and will be a subject for historians a thousand years from now, but it has been a source of wonder and dread to see it happen in real time.

I think that's part of the problem. The organization has changed from teaching responsible arms ownership to being quite frankly representing the interests of the gun companies.

Given the concern trolling about mental illness (that doesn't involve any actual engagement with definitions of mental illness), I wouldn't be surprised if we see lobbying for easier involuntary commitment and less stringent standards. It can become the new wing of the prison industrial complex.

When I first became aware of the NRA, back in the 50s, it was an organization of rather kindly older people who ran safety and marksmanship classes, supervised shooting competitions, and handed out various awards. They shied away from the idea that you might actually shoot a criminal with one of your guns, let alone resist the national government or any other lawful authority.

7. Louisiana. In the Bayou State, sales of guns and ammunition have been high on the upswing since Obama’s re-election. But now, since the school shootings, they’re off the chain. From a report by Tania Dall of WWLTV’s Eyewitness News team:

In November, the Jefferson Parish store [Jefferson Gun Outlet] saw a 117 percent jump in sales. [Owner Mike] Mayer said last Friday’s tragic shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School has phones ringing off the hook.

“There are a lot of stock checks going on because the stores around this area are running out. So people are frantically trying to find something, somewhere that they can go purchase,” said Mayer.

[...]

“Our main distributor is here in Louisiana, in Shreveport. They sell over 1 million guns a year at their distributor base and they’re completely out of anything that would be considered an assault weapon,” said Mayer.

There was not a single adult male on the school premises when the shooting occurred. In this school of 450 students, a sizeable number of whom were undoubtedly 11- and 12-year-old boys (it was a K–6 school), all the personnel — the teachers, the principal, the assistant principal, the school psychologist, the “reading specialist” — were female. There didn’t even seem to be a male janitor to heave his bucket at Adam Lanza’s knees. Women and small children are sitting ducks for mass-murderers. The principal, Dawn Hochsprung, seemed to have performed bravely. According to reports, she activated the school’s public-address system and also lunged at Lanza, before he shot her to death. Some of the teachers managed to save all or some of their charges by rushing them into closets or bathrooms. But in general, a feminized setting is a setting in which helpless passivity is the norm. Male aggression can be a good thing, as in protecting the weak — but it has been forced out of the culture of elementary schools and the education schools that train their personnel. Think of what Sandy Hook might have been like if a couple of male teachers who had played high-school football, or even some of the huskier 12-year-old boys, had converged on Lanza.

The body was discovered about 7:20 a.m. slumped behind the steering wheel of a black Chevrolet Silverado pickup in the 5300 block of Lost Forest near Pinemont and not far from Clifton Middle School, according to the Houston Police Department.

Details about the shooting were sketchy, said HPD Officer M.L. Stahlin. Stahlin said a resident spotted the man in the truck. The engine was idling. The resident tried to get the man's attention but couldn't and then discovered the man had been shot. The resident called 911.

"Guns don't kill people, people do" has got to be one of the stupidest statements I've ever heard in my life.

Why? Because it is a statement with no content. No one is asserting that a gun walks around killing people on it's own. Guns make killing people a lot more efficient... THAT is the point to be addressed.

This morning, Sen. Jay Rockefeller introduced legislation in the Senate “to arrange for the National Academy of Sciences to study the impact of violent video games and violent programming on children.” It’s depressing to see lawmakers rushing after diversions in the wake of the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Connecticut, when the conversations we ought to be having should be about gun control and mental health treatment, among other structural factors. And it’s even worse when you consider that Rockefeller’s wholly redundant bill has hit the floor of Congress before any gun legislation was introduced.

Part of what makes Rockefeller’s request that the National Academy study video game violence so frustrating to watch is that the Academy’s done just this before. The 1999 Missing, Exploited, and Runaway Children Protection Act included a provision that had the Secretary of Education contract the Academy to study the origins of school violence, including “the impact of cultural influences and exposure to the media, video games, and the Internet.” Katherine Newman, the Johns Hopkins professor who lead up that team, wrote in Rampage: The Social Roots of School Shootings, her later book on the subject, that “Millions of young people play video games full of fistfights, blazing guns, and body slams. Bodies litter the floor in many of our most popular films. Yet only a minuscule fraction of the consumers become violent. Hence, if there is an effect, children are not all equally susceptible to it.” In other words, finding out why a very small number of consumers are overly influenced by popular culture may be more useful than trying to measure the uneven and diffuse influence of movies, television shows, and games.

"Guns don't kill people, people do" has got to be one of the stupidest statements I've ever heard in my life.

Why? Because it is a statement with no content. No one is asserting that a gun walks around killing people on it's own. Guns make killing people a lot more efficient... THAT is the point to be addressed.

People kill people.
People with guns kill a lot more people.

Exactly. Yeah of course a gun on its own doesn't kill people but if you're going to tell me with a straight face that an assault rifle doesn't kill people at a quicker rate than say a bolt action rifle, than you need to be laughed at. That's why these things are designed. They were designed for combat situations when you may need to fire off a lot of rounds at a lot of people. You don't need it to hunt, you don't need to cover up your "man card", etc.

The Japanese right wing was big on the Banzai charge, and they even taught it to children. Then the atomic bombs fell and they reluctantly decided that all the suicidal and ruthlessly applied courage and indoctrination in the world wouldn't match the ruthless application of modern science.

So let's give teachers guns. Because the gunman who's gonna blow his brains out anyway will be deterred by the knowledge that his targets can shoot back.

///

Pretty much. It's exceptionally rare that mass-murderers like this do their deeds because they think they're going to get away with it. Almost without exception, they're looking to go out in a blaze of infamy, and are prepared to die before they even start. A good number of them do the job themselves.

Parents of sick children need to be realistic about them. I know at least two sets of fine and devoted parents who have had the misfortune to raise sons who were troubled for genetic reasons beyond anyone’s control. Either of those boys could have been an Adam Lanza. You simply can’t give a non-working, non-school-enrolled 20-year-old man free range of your home, much less your cache of weapons. You have to set boundaries. You have to say, “You can’t live here anymore — you’re an adult, and it’s time for you to be a man. We’ll give you all the support you need, but we won’t be enablers.” Unfortunately, the idea of being an “adult” and a “man” once one has reached physical maturity seems to have faded out of our coddling culture.

Can you find anything there that you think is worth sharing? I'm on page 3 of seven and it's just being piled higher and deeper.

Like this:

But we can’t deceive ourselves that legislation or any other policy reform can redeem a fallen world. Mankind, by its very nature, is fallen — broken and sinful — and broken men will cause immense suffering. That is not a comforting thought, but it is real; it is true.

Yes, like the pathetic way the article tries to tie back into feminization at the end:

Parents of sick children need to be realistic about them. I know at least two sets of fine and devoted parents who have had the misfortune to raise sons who were troubled for genetic reasons beyond anyone’s control. Either of those boys could have been an Adam Lanza. You simply can’t give a non-working, non-school-enrolled 20-year-old man free range of your home, much less your cache of weapons. You have to set boundaries. You have to say, “You can’t live here anymore — you’re an adult, and it’s time for you to be a man. We’ll give you all the support you need, but we won’t be enablers.” Unfortunately, the idea of being an “adult” and a “man” once one has reached physical maturity seems to have faded out of our coddling culture.

So seriously, their idea of what would have made this better is to tell Adam Lanza he couldn't live at home anymore? That would have awoken his dormant masculinity?

I'd be willing to bet that a lot of the gun-buying frenzy we're seeing now is not just gun nuts, but also "market speculators". My dad bought a Colt AR-15A2 in the mid 80s, and paid (I think) something like $700 for it brand-new. After he died, I ended up having to sell off a lot of stuff, and I sold it back to a gun shop for about $500. Then about a year after that, the Brady ban was signed and you couldn't touch a pre-ban AR-15 for less than $2000 (the banned types were grandfathered, so weapons and magazines manufactured prior to the ban could still be bought and sold legally). I probably could have sold it for at least that much, if not more, because it was in practically mint condition and hadn't been fired very much. I was really kicking myself that I hadn't held onto it.

There are probably a lot of people suspecting that a similar situation will arise from whatever new laws (if any) are enacted.

So, we're now supposed to have more guns in schools because of a lack of religion in schools (they're too secular). How is having more guns in school supposed to address secularism of schools, unless it's to address those times when people are going to be screaming and praying to their god when some other shooter comes barreling through and turning the classrooms crimson with blood.
/

...Is it so unbelievable that you and I are Adam Lanza? If you are one of those few readers who has not procured an abortion, betrayed a spouse, abandoned your child through divorce, made yourself bestial with porn, or simply indulged a hatred of your fellow man, it’s only by the grace of God that you have not.

I know that that is a moralistic conclusion. But I’m a Catholic, in the “minor penitential season of Advent,” which should elicit self-directed moralism. My practical advice is therefore: Let us examine our lives, repent in sackcloth and ashes, be as medieval as possible in “doing reparation” for others, and repeat, after Isaiah, “Woe is me! For I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips!”

So, we're now supposed to have more guns in schools because of a lack of religion in schools (they're too secular). How is having more guns in school supposed to address secularism of schools, unless it's to address those times when people are going to be screaming and praying to their god when some other shooter comes barreling through and turning the classrooms crimson with blood.
/

Stop it, you're using logic. But yeah I never got the equation of religious values with guns and secularism with no guns. But then again, we do have those like Bryan Fischer who say the teachings of Jesus Christ form the basis for the second amendment which makes about as much sense as saying that the story of Job is why we have the eighth amendment.

Holy shit, they just keep getting dumber and more intent on finding a way on blaming liberals:

The actions of young Adam Lanza betray that unfathomable opacity, the heart of darkness. Coleridge, writing of Iago, diagnosed his evil as an example of “motiveless malignancy.” So it is here. The psychologist, the social worker, likewise the “gun control” zealots, have nothing but nostrums for us in such cases. With the lives of a score of children suddenly snuffed out, likewise the several adults who were brutally murdered, it is pointless to pester the Almighty with “Why?” This really was — terrible phrase — senseless murder, though we find it all but impossible to rest in that senselessness. It is difficult, maybe impossible, to spare much sentiment for Adam Lanza when many of the corpses he produced have yet to be interred. But what a tangled, desperate horror his heart must have been. We are in the presence, here, of a hard, dark, numinous mystery that we can recoil from but never explain.

That's right folks, don't try and study the situation. Don't ask questions. It's an ineffable mystery...those nasty psych people are useless and we should totally dismiss them because god stuff.

Well, we already know they are responsible for the "War On Christmas" which is OMG just like the Spanish Inquisition!1!ty so from there it's just a short hop to MASS SHOOTING OF KINDERGARTENERS.
//////

The article as a whole, either the entire part or the excerpts do the National Review no favors. It shows just how depraved the organization is, that they have no problem finding blame with anyone and anything other than the easy availability of the weapons used to kill so many children.

OT: Sorry for going off-topic, but holy shit! This Golden Eagle actually snatched a toddler off the ground and started to fly away with it. Thankfully, the dad reacted in time. When I saw the title "Golden Eagle Snatches Kid " I thought they meant a baby goat. Be sure to watch the slow-motion at the end. Gah! O_o

A friend of mine who lives in a rural area says they're huge, strong, and quite capable of carrying off anything smaller than they are: cats, dogs, chickens, etc.

OT: Sorry for going off-topic, but holy shit! This Golden Eagle actually snatched a toddler off the ground and started to fly away with it. Thankfully, the dad reacted in time. When I saw the title "Golden Eagle Snatches Kid " I thought they meant a baby goat. Be sure to watch the slow-motion at the end. Gah! O_o

A friend of mine who lives in a rural area says they're huge, strong, and quite capable of carrying off anything smaller than they are: cats, dogs, chickens, etc.

[Embedded content]

The video has been outed as a CGI project, no rare eagles or toddlers participated in the making of this video.

If there were two airliners going my way identical in every way except one had an armed pilot, I'd likely take that plane. It is certainly not at all negative in my mind. It's a good example of professionals taking on another set of skill that lives depend on.

That situation in St Louis crystalizes much of what's wrong with the current state of affairs.

Guy gets into discussion about Newtown. Argument gets heated. Guy thinks a threat was made. Runs out to car and grabs gun and fires it at the other person.

Turns out the guy shouldn't have had a gun - was a convicted felon for murder in NJ back in 1975 and he claims it was his wife's gun. As if that makes it any better. Today's situation at least ended without anyone dead, but that wasn't a sure thing.

Now imagine if the other people in that barbershop had guns. That's what so many others are advocating. They are pushing for additional armament of the population where even the slightest offense could lead to casualties, and casualties beyond those involved in the conflict.

One of my ducks just got grabbed by an eagle! Holy surreal Batman. On one hand I'm upset and furious....on the other I'm just 'wow oh wow' that was amazing.
...At least I now know that my livestock guardian pup sounds the alarm with air critters too. That's why I actually saw it happen. She started barking like crazy, like she does with coyotes so I went out to see what was happening. Of course I was looking for ground foes when 'whoosh'....there goes the duck. :( I think the eagle was sitting up in a large tree, then dive bombed.

Keep getting told that arming teachers will give them a fighting chance, then looking at the growing popularity amongst gunman for body armor. Hell, Holmes even went the full nine and not only suited up in tactical gear, he used a smoke grenade while wearing a gas mask. Arming teachers won't stop determined gunmen, it'll just drive them to invest in body armor for their swan song. Then what, start issuing teachers armor-piercing rounds? Let them carry assault rifles?

Keep getting told that arming teachers will give them a fighting chance, then looking at the growing popularity amongst gunman for body armor. Hell, Holmes even went the full nine and not only suited up in tactical gear, he used a smoke grenade while wearing a gas mask. Arming teachers won't stop determined gunmen, it'll just drive them to invest in body armor for their swan song. Then what, start issuing teachers armor-piercing rounds? Let them carry assault rifles?

It's only a matter of time before the gunmen start using Terminator technology /////////////////////

Keep getting told that arming teachers will give them a fighting chance, then looking at the growing popularity amongst gunman for body armor. Hell, Holmes even went the full nine and not only suited up in tactical gear, he used a smoke grenade while wearing a gas mask. Arming teachers won't stop determined gunmen, it'll just drive them to invest in body armor for their swan song. Then what, start issuing teachers armor-piercing rounds? Let them carry assault rifles?

Personally, I find it both hilarious and incredibly hypocritical that the same assholes who whine about the jackbooted thugs in the teachers' unions and who want to strip collective bargaining rights and gut the entire public education system suddenly want teachers armed.

Personally, I find it both hilarious and incredibly hypocritical that the same assholes who whine about the jackbooted thugs in the teachers' unions and who want to strip collective bargaining rights and gut the entire public education system suddenly want teachers armed.

Because really, people under the stress of watching their take-home pay shrink, their benefits disappear, and their job security reliant on whose ass they kiss should be trusted with a firearm around children. After all, it's not like they're postal workers...

It's short, vague and says "everybody is appropriating this event, let's take some time." It's not that I agree with it, but that it's not bugfuck crazy.

Admittedly I wrote that last post without researching her. Would not be shocked about your assertion/opinion, though. Did a book called "The Immigrant Solution" and works for City Journal.

Okay, so I read some of her stuff and I've done some vigorous retracting, while leaving the original statements in strikeout. Thanks for the heads up.

Yeah, it was mercifully short, and said we should use reason and facts before we act. Too bad those concepts are so malleable.

No prob on the heads up. I had to soften my statement in honor of Sergey, who I hope shall return some day, because he would want proof before accepting such a thing, and I don't have time to dig it up. But thanks for confirming my general sense.

Since hijackings are about as common as incidents with guns and pilots... You are less concerned about a hijacker than a pilot with a gun practicing or not? That's kind of illustrative.

You could trust the very high standards and almost complete lack of incidents on a very reasonable logical basis. I'm starting to think you want rules set so high they serve as "poison pill" disincentives rather than just public safety.

If there were two airliners going my way identical in every way except one had an armed pilot, I'd likely take that plane. It is certainly not at all negative in my mind. It's a good example of professionals taking on another set of skill that lives depend on.

Are you quite sure? In order to use his gun, the pilot would have to OPEN THE COCKPIT DOOR.

No, the door can be forced open, or another flight deck officer could do that if it were the right thing to do under their procedures, which are classified or at least unpublished.
[Link: www.wired.com...]

The number of pilots who have been through the training and are authorized to carry a gun in the cockpit has not been released. But Flagg told the Orlando Sun Sentinel that the number is just under the FBI which has 13,800 armed officers according to the paper.

Since hijackings are about as common as incidents with guns and pilots... You are less concerned about a hijacker than a pilot with a gun practicing or not? That's kind of illustrative.

I'm not concerned about either.

You could trust the very high standards and almost complete lack of incidents on a very reasonable logical basis. I'm starting to think you want rules set so high they serve as "poison pill" disincentives rather than just public safety.

What very high standards? For CCW? Don't make me laugh, I've now actually done the research myself and the standards in many places are incredibly low.

What very high standards? For CCW? Don't make me laugh, I've now actually done the research myself and the standards in many places are incredibly low.

High standards for airliner pilots. the whole subthread between us was pilots. And a 6 day course like that is perfect for CCW.

Now that you brought it up, you should also examine the stats on CCW carry. Like the likelihood of there being at least one CCW holder at the theater in Aurora. who sensibly fled with the rest of the crowd.

Keep this in mind too-CCW was not a criminal factor in any of the mass shootings. So a good safety record overall, no involvement in these mass shootings.

What is the real world basis for your concern?

I'd love to see CCW holders have to annually re certify their skills. Myself and my fellow trainers will make a bundle!

Keep this in mind too-CCW was not a criminal factor in any of the mass shootings. So a good safety record overall, no involvement in these mass shootings.

What is the real world basis for your concern?

Since I found out that the contention that CCW requirements are rigorous is bullshit, I'm not going to accept other assertions about CCW holders at face value either. I'd like to see an analysis, for example, that wasn't just blank statistics but contained analysis and correction for conflating factors.

I was never saying that CCW was a factor in mass shootings. No clue where you pulled that out of. I'm saying that it's pointless to let people carry around a gun if they don't have the rigorous training it'd take to use it well in a crisis. If they can't do that, there is no fucking point to carrying the gun. Right?

I don't care if what normally happens is that they freeze up and don't shoot or that they run away like a good person or whatever. They want to walk around while armed, I want them to have the skill and training to use that weapon in a crisis, because otherwise what possible reason do they have for carrying it around?

The fact that you don't care how well they are doing under present rules is not (in my view) reasonable. It's too much data to dismiss. So much so it's inherently unfair. Intellectually short of a full box.

Solving problems that have nothing to do with the rate of killings by criminals is totally beside the point of what got us here-A mass killing by a criminal who stole the guns and forced his way in.

The fact that you don't care how well they are doing under present rules is not (in my view) reasonable. It's too much data to dismiss. So much so it's inherently unfair. Intellectually short of a full box.

You're missing my point. If they cannot carry the gun around and use it effectively in a crisis situation, why do they want to carry a gun around?

Solving problems that have nothing to do with the rate of killings by criminals is totally beside the point of what got us here-A mass killing by a criminal who stole the guns and forced his way in.

See, I don't just want to solve that problem. I also want to solve problems like the CCW carrier down in Florida who just shot someone, or George Zimmerman shooting someone, or all the accidental shootings we have, and all the other gun crime in this country. I assume you do too.

What evidence do you have a 6 day course is inadequate?

First of all, common sense. Learning how to get good at a simple, stupid computer game where your mistakes have no consequences and the interface is blatantly simple takes longer than six days. Second of all, the testimony of LEOs who say that regular retraining is necessary to stay sharp with crisis skills. Third, a friend of mine who is a SWAT team leader who I've been talking with as this has unfolded. He basically thinks anyone who thinks they can use their gun well in a crisis who isn't training 2-3 hours a day with it is incredibly self-deluded. Obivously his standards are sky-high, but he's the guy who's had to deal with armed civilians. Fourth, my own experience. I took some classes, you may remember, about half a year ago. A total of about twenty-five hours of instruction. I went back there last month, and could barely remember a damn thing about it.

Do you have anything showing that CCW holders can respond well in a crisis situation after a six day course? Any reason you do believe its efficacious?

I don't think a cc permit holder requires swat training. If that brave principal could've planted a 9mm round in mrLanzas pelvis or head i am confident this conversation would be quite different. America has lots of problems. In this case it was one nutjob too many.

I don't think a cc permit holder requires swat training. If that brave principal could've planted a 9mm round in mrLanzas pelvis or head i am confident this conversation would be quite different.

I'm not saying they need SWAT training. I'm saying they need enough training to be able to use their weapons effectively in a crisis. I do not think that six days of training however long ago is enough for that. I think being able to use your gun effectively in a crisis takes significant and ongoing training.

Do you have anything showing that CCW holders can respond well in a crisis situation after a six day course? Any reason you do believe its efficacious?

First a side note-We have been disagreeing a lot of late. Everyone is upset at recent events. Because we are not social pals, we have little friendly contact to balance. I'd like to reach out and say hey let's ease up a little, understand we want a friendly exchange of ideas. The tone between us has declined and I think that's fixable.

Okay to your question-
Yes, the record of the graduates I have seen and shot with. Which is not published except via FBI stats or similar. Which is national with varying levels or training and training requirements. I'm sorry we are on opposite coasts, I'd love to show you rather than tell you what can be taught in a few days. My experience teaching tactical defense skills for more than a decade has shown me how well or poorly people learn. But I can't write all that up and just post it.

The flight deck officer course was heavily reviewed. With some modification it would be excellent for CCW.
look at this link and see if you really thinks it's crazy short. Federal air marshal gun training is very very well regarded.
[Link: www.law.cornell.edu...]
2) Training.—
(A) In general.— The Under Secretary shall base the requirements for the training of Federal flight deck officers under subsection (b) on the training standards applicable to Federal air marshals; except that the Under Secretary shall take into account the differing roles and responsibilities of Federal flight deck officers and Federal air marshals.
(B) Elements.— The training of a Federal flight deck officer shall include, at a minimum, the following elements:
(i) Training to ensure that the officer achieves the level of proficiency with a firearm required under subparagraph (C)(i).
(ii) Training to ensure that the officer maintains exclusive control over the officer’s firearm at all times, including training in defensive maneuvers.
(iii) Training to assist the officer in determining when it is appropriate to use the officer’s firearm and when it is appropriate to use less than lethal force.
(C) Training in use of firearms.—
(i) Standard.— In order to be deputized as a Federal flight deck officer, a pilot must achieve a level of proficiency with a firearm that is required by the Under Secretary. Such level shall be comparable to the level of proficiency required of Federal air marshals.
(ii) Conduct of training.— The training of a Federal flight deck officer in the use of a firearm may be conducted by the Under Secretary or by a firearms training facility approved by the Under Secretary.
(iii) Requalification.— The Under Secretary shall require a Federal flight deck officer to requalify to carry a firearm under the program. Such requalification shall occur at an interval required by the Under Secretary.

First a side note-We have been disagreeing a lot of late. Everyone is upset at recent events. Because we are not social pals, we have little friendly contact to balance. I'd like to reach out and say hey let's ease up a little, understand we want a friendly exchange of ideas. The tone between us has declined and I think that's fixable.

I'm sorry, where in my past post do you see a problem with tone? I'm fine with a friendly exchange of ideas. That doesn't mean I'm going to hold back on criticism.

Yes, the record of the graduates I have seen and shot with. Which is not published except via FBI stats or similar. Which is national with varying levels or training and training requirements. I'm sorry we are on opposite coasts, I'd love to show you rather than tell you what can be taught in a few days. My experience teaching tactical defense skills for more than a decade has shown me how well or poorly people learn. But I can't write all that up and just post it.

I don't even understand what question you're trying to answer here. If it's this question "Do you have anything showing that CCW holders can respond well in a crisis situation after a six day course? Any reason you do believe its efficacious?" and your response is "I have anecdotal evidence", then I'm sorry, but why would you think that would be convincing?

And I don't know where you're going with the Air Marshall stuff. Why are we suddenly talking about Air Marshals?

From what I'm reading, Air Marshal training starts with a seven week course and then follows that up with a secondary phase that goes for I'm not sure how long. Obviously, a lot of that can be left out for the flight officers, since some of it has to do with laws, etc., but a lot of it is the tactical training.

The link is about pilots getting rated for a gun in the cockpit. The standard calls for a skill level comparable to air marshals. A pretty high standard. And the training to get there? 6 days. Of course a pilot needs to learn a lot less than an air marshal.

But the skill should be comparable.

I understand anecdotal evidence is weak. But I'm no lay person. I really did the work myself, with others a long time. Ordinarily we put some trust in professionals doing a particular job. SWAT guys think in terms of taking to the bad guys in a crowd. That's miles from CCW. Remember I have a liability as a trainer. No way could we get insured or stay in biz if our students were out there screwing up.

The link is about pilots getting rated for a gun in the cockpit. The standard calls for a skill level comparable to air marshals. A pretty high standard. And the training to get there? 6 days. Of course a pilot needs to learn a lot less than an air marshal.

I don't see where the link says that training is six days, though.

I understand anecdotal evidence is weak. But I'm no lay person. I really did the work myself, with others a long time. Ordinarily we put some trust in professionals doing a particular job. SWAT guys think in terms of taking to the bad guys in a crowd. That's miles from CCW. Remember I have a liability as a trainer. No way could we get insured or stay in biz if our students were out there screwing up.

Again: My basic argument is:

If a person wants to carry a gun in public, then he should be able to demonstrate that he can use that gun in a crisis in public. Because otherwise, there is zero reason for them to carry that gun.

So it's really not about the amount of time, because obviously some students will need a lot more time than others and some will need a lot less. It's more about then testing them afterwards. I should have stated this more clearly from the start; I got way too hung up on the six days thing. For some students, six days might be enough, and it might stick with them for months afterwards, even though I severely doubt it. It obviously isn't enough for everyone.

What I would like is for once a month, a CCW holder to have to go and do some 'tactical usage' test in a crisis situation set up by the police department or what have you, and prove they can still use the weapon effectively. If they can't, then there is no point in them having the weapon.

i disqualify his mother because she apparently didn't see the potential for this type of violence in her son. tho she owned several guns i doubt she holstered up every morning, or left the ar15 out on the counter. based on what i've read about what she shared w/her drinking buddies she never saw this (being shot in the face by her son) coming. this occurrence ranks up there with flying planes into buildings. unthinkable.....until now.
re: stopping him at the school? hindsight is 20:20 there's really only one way to deal with an armed nutjob ....... shoot him. too bad security measures didn't plan for all eventualities. too bad no one looking out for these innocents had a gun to counter him.

What very high standards? For CCW? Don't make me laugh, I've now actually done the research myself and the standards in many places are incredibly low.

If the standards are so low how do you explain the extremely low number of improper uses of a concealed gun? The record we have indicates people are being careful and conservative in the use of the concealed guns. Because of the mass shooting that had no ccw implications at all?

A government survey of male felons in 1982 [8] found:
- 34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"
- 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun"
- 69% personally knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim

If the standards are so low how do you explain the extremely low number of improper uses of a concealed gun? T

I don't understand why there's a connection. If we gave most people a CCW they wouldn't get into any trouble with it, even with zero training.

The record we have indicates people are being careful and conservative in the use of the concealed guns. Because of the mass shooting that had no ccw implications at all?

Again: I don't care if they're careful and conservative. I care if they have a valid reason to be carrying it around. If they don't it's just an added risk, no matter how small. If they can't use the gun in a crisis, what good is them carrying the gun around? Why do they want to carry it around if they couldn't actually use it confidently in a crisis?

I really don't think citing a CCW forum is appropriate, do you? Especially one that doesn't seem to be differentiating between legal carriers and illegal, in terms of who got scared off/shot at? I mean, I'm not going to start citing this place: [Link: www.vpc.org...] .